Girls is it true that women with small boobs have largest ego?

[Anonymous]

😂😂

[Kayla45]

I mean if you really think about it, breasts are just lumps of fat with milk glands for feeding babies. In reality the only main difference in size would probably be just how much milk she could potentially produce for her newborn child.

Other than that there's not really any other benefit aside from sexual appeal.

[Asker]

What's your size?

[HiveBee]

I've noticed that dudes have different reasons for liking boobs.

Personally I like shapes and not size. But apparently a lot of (white) guys just like boobs to be big no matter the shape.

To me it's weird.

Who knows why people are attracted to one thing or another. In some cultures they don't see boobs sexually.

Imagine not seeing anything sexually. Could such a society arise?

[TheSpaceGnome]

@Kayla45 "not really any other benefit aside from sexual appeal."
That is the only noteworthy benefit to most men. Ironically, more men care about the sex appeal of them than the function, at least initially anyway.

@HiveBee
Genetics dictate sexual attraction, not culture. Culture arises from genetics being similar enough among a lot of locals to result in large groups liking the same things.

[HiveBee]

Yea I'm not going to have the biological essentialism vs social constructionism debate with you.

I'm already doing the academic research myself.

Are you? If so I'll be glad to take note of any sources you believe are legitimate claims to knowledge.

If not, it's all good. But it's a very interesting topic to me and I have yet to get to the bottom of it.

[TheSpaceGnome]

@HiveBee Best source for evidence is seeing it yourself, if you are trusting sources, thats where you are poluting your data. Use logic instead.

An individual's genetic makeup is what decides how they respond to stimuli, there aren't any exceptions to this.

Even if you are coerced, your genetic makeup is why you responded to the influence that way.
Even if your life experiences and knowledge gained effected your choices/responses, your genetic makeup is what caused you to retain or understand said knowledge, or interpret it a specific way, and your genetic makeup is what lead you to enjoy, dislike, or be indifferent to the experiences that lead to said knowledge or resulted from said knowledge.

All of biology is determinalistic, but to such a complex level that most of it is unpredictable.
Your mistake is in thinking that essentialism and constructionism are separate things, instead of part of the same thing.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Simply acknowledging how sensory organs work is proof enough of my claim. Without them there is no thought, no sensations, and genes make those organs be in the condition that they are, therefor genes make our physical and mental responses, and since our responces make our opinions, our genes make our opinions. The only readon peoppe debate this, is they make the mistake of not including random mutations. mutations result in variants, which are outside the usual range for a lineage. Hense individuality.

[TheSpaceGnome]

reason people*

[HiveBee]

I believe we have free will so we completely differing perspectives.

Also i think if someone wants to be intellectually honest, one has to ingest and integrate all possible perspectives and that includes science. Seeing as how science is our most reliable system for obtaining knowledge of the world.

Not that science is the end all be all. But if you are not integrating those perspectives into your understanding of the world, than you're missing out on quite a lot.

I'm absolutely one to question science. But I don't do it blindly if I can help it.

We aren't going to agree because you are a determinist and I believe we have free will.

The fact that we experience anything at all can't be explained by Determinism. We should not experience anything at all. We should be mindless robots.

Determinism cannot explain qualia. The hard problem of consciousness.

Unless determinism decides that qualia is an emergent property. Determinism cannot explain qualia in the same way it cannot explain free will.

Both are impossible under Determinism. Yet here we are experiencing reality and experiencing that we have free will.

I don't know if you're trying to have a debate on free will but my perspective on free will comes from Ayn Rand.

It's fun stuff either way lol. I love this kind of shit. I wish I could find a bitch smart enough to talk about these things.

[TheSpaceGnome]

@HiveBee Subjective experiences are determinalistic, but as I said, too complex to be predictable. Its because of variances.

There is a whole topic about this with chaos theory. Nothing is truly random, just varying degrees of complex, and everything to ever happen is determinalistic.

Free will is just the option to be self governed by your own genes instead of forced to obey another's.
People debate over if its the mind in control or the body, but they are the same thing. Your genetic makeup IS you, so if its govering everything you do, then you are governing everything you do.

Free will itself exists, and is still determinalistic.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Or to put it another way, your genetic makeup chooses how you respond to everything, and that creates your reflexes, your free will, and your subjective experiences.

[TheSpaceGnome]

I think people only make the mistake of free will vs genetics because they don't think about their brain as decentralized.

Look at an octopus, all of its nervous system is its brain, it does not ask if its body or mind is in control, because its not delusioned into thinking there is a difference.

[HiveBee]

No matter the complexity, there should never be a conscious experience.

Until we understand how that works, the rest is a mystery in my opinion. Free will or otherwise. The debate is pointless because the real question, the real mystery, is qualia. The hard problem of consciousness.

There is no answer to it out there. Collapsed wave functions or not. Probability or not.

None of it explains qualia.

[Anonymous]

im not sure about that but I've noticed chicks have almost supernatural unarmed combat fighting skills the last 20 years or so.
theyre always beating trained men in kungfu and such.
Then backflip themselves into a cocktail dress in time for a lovely night out on the town.
Theyre amazing.
Or perhaps thats just chicks on tv shows

[D_Bone_Steak]

I think it might have more to do with them not being overweight and saught over much more than their land whale counterparts.

Now let me sit back and wait to see which hog-beast woman I pissed off and triggered just now tries to tell me what's what.

Bring it on you fat doubled chinned back boobs having hog beasts... with your Gomber Pile ass.

[marrk]

I don’t think they are statistically correlated, although larger women tend to comment on my weight/breasts way more than a man oddly enough and my boyfriend loves my body/breasts. (I’m athletic genetically).

I’d love to know the story behind this question:)

[Messiking]

I think that this question is dumb. But I prefer girls with small or medium boobs maybe because I love women's eyes.
I believe that a woman is not only about her breasts. In my opinion, the most important thing when assessing appearance is the face
For me, eyes are more beautiful than breasts.
I guess it makes sense that breast size has nothing to do with personality.
Do you think guys with small peminis are narcissists?

[Anonymous]

No. But girls wit smaller bobs do seem to attack the women with bigger boobs out of jealousy for some reason. Which is silly when you think about it.

So it probably just appears that way. Kind of like how the squeakiest wheel gets the grease. The loudest woman just appears to have a big ego. She doesn't she's just a bully.

[overthinkergirl]

hahahahhaha what a question but anyways my answer would be no

[Asker]

But you have ego lol

[overthinkergirl]

dont make assumpsions

[overthinkergirl]

and everyone has ego some has hugh and some low ego

[overthinkergirl]

okay think whatever you want

[Asker]

Sure miss world 😘

[WhitneySnow]

Lol no. Boob size has nothing to do with ego, but if it did it would be big boobed girls because they get more male attention.

[HiveBee]

That's what I was thinking lol.

[OlderAndWiser]

No, there are just as many guys who prefer girls with smaller boobs.

[SashaHa]

I get picked on a lot by smaller girls…so I think it’s true…

[riverrat3]

Teens can be cruel

[Telekinetic-Potato]

I think it's the same thing as dudes with a small dick having a Napoleon complex

[Massageman]

One is not statistically related to the other.

[TheSpaceGnome]

I would think large boobs would be more likely to inflate ego to the ego prone.

[Anonymous]

I heard that rich guys prefere smaller boobs and poor guys bigger boobs in dating XD

I've never heard what you said, I would say its reverse

[HiveBee]

I grew up very poor and always preferred small boobs. Just saying lol.

[Opinion Owner]

Just one research on that that i heard of, probably not that many participants either, thats why I said it jokingly

[convo_king89]

No it’s the opposite ur thinking girls with smallest boobs have the biggest brain.. lol

[zagor]

There is no correlation between size of ego and boobs.

[Anonymous]

Would say young racist white girls

Girls with lots of money have lots of ego irrespective of their boob size.

[katiesmuff]

What a dumb ass question!

[Asker]

Love you too 😘😂

[Minahh]

What about men with small cocks 🤔

[Asker]

They are egoist too 😂

[SmallWiener]

I am notva ego :-)

[MissBoogus]

Not from what I’ve seen

[Wise4myage]

I'm guessing its the opposite.

[BLP11520]

Where did you come up with that idea?

[sheenagwapa]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Iron_Man]

I doubt that

[MJtheCoach]

Wtf?